On
April 3, 2012, Movant pled guilty to: (1) four counts of the
Indictment in Crim Act. No. 11-71-LPS, charging him with
conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, social security
fraud, and aggravated identity theft; and (2) three counts of
the Felony Information in Crim. Act. No. 12-18-LPS, charging
him with conspiracy to defraud the Government with respect to
claims, identity theft, and misuse of a social security
number. (D.I. 55 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-LPS-l; D.I. 3 in
Crim. Act. No. 12-18-LPS) On August 2, 2012, the Court
sentenced Movant to a total of fifty-one months of
imprisonment. (D.I. 76 in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-LPS-l; D.I. 7
in Crim. Act. No. 12-18-LPS) Movant appealed, and the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals summarily affirmed his convictions
due to his appellate waiver. (D.I. 96 in Crim. Act. No.
11-71-LPS-l; D.L 16 in Crim. Act. 12-18-LPS)

In his
Motion to Consolidate, Movant seeks to consolidate his §
2255 proceeding with Wright's § 2255
Motion[1] because he and Wright are seeking to
vacate their judgments in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-LPS on the
same ground, and they are seeking identical relief. (D.I. 94
in Crim. Act. No. 11-71-2-LPS-l) After reviewing Movant's
§ 2255 Motion, Wright's § 2255 Motion, and the
Government's Answer in Opposition, the Court concludes
that consolidating Movant's § 2255 Motion with
Wright's § 2255 Motion would be inappropriate. As
explained below, the Court concludes that Movant's §
2255 Motion is meritless. In contrast, however, according to
the Government's Response in Wright's § 2255
proceeding, Wright's § 2255 Motion is
time-barred.[2]Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion
to Consolidate.

IV.
DISCUSSION

In the
instant Motion, Movant asserts that defense counsel provided
ineffective assistance by: (1) failing to object to the
enhancement for there being 50 or more victims; and (2)
failing to object to the computation of his criminal history
score at sentencing. The Government contends that these
Claims should be denied as meritless.

Movant
has properly raised his ineffective assistance of counsel
allegations in a § 2255 motion. See Massaro v.
United States,538 U.S. 500 (2003). Although Paragraph 9
of Movant's Plea Agreement contains the following waiver
of Movant's right to file a direct appeal and/or a
collateral attack on his conviction and sentence, the waiver
expressly exempts ineffective assistance of counsel claims:

The defendant knows that he has, and voluntarily and
expressly agrees to waive, the right to file any appeal, any
collateral attack, or any other writ or motion in this
criminal case after sentencing - including but not limited
to, an appeal under Tide 18, United States Code, Section 3742
or Tide 28, United States Code Section 1291 or a motion under
Title 28, United States Code Section 2255 - except that the
Defendant reserves his right to appeal based on a claim that:
(1) Defendant's sentence exceeded the statutory maximum;
(2) ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.